tv Charlie Rose PBS August 7, 2014 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
>> rose: welcome to the program, we begin this evening with 0 john micklethwait the editor too much economist magazine he and his colleague conducted a fascinating interview with the president of the united states. >> it is a very contemplative president, and that's the part of obama in some ways i am surprised me doesn't do more interviews like that because if you give obama time to talk he is an interesting thoughtful man and i think that is really the obama that americans first voted for and stweal still do in large numbers. he has looked to the world and learn a great deal. >> and tonight another perspective on the israeli palestinian conflicts having heard from the israeli am bass for to the united states, tonight three palestinians and an egyptian talk about the palestinian perspective. >> palestinians cannot choose israelly leaders, israel lis should not be choo choosing
palestinian leaders if you are going to have an agreement ever on this issue it has to be between parties that actually, actually legitimately represent the steak hold in other words this issue. and that is not going to be served by keeping palestinians divided. >> obama on obama and palestinians on hamas when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose is provided by the following. >> there's a saying around here: you stand behind what you say. around here, we don't make excuses, we make commitments. and when you can't live up to them, you own up and make it right. some people think the kind of accountability that thrives on so many streets in this country has gone missing in the places
where it's needed most. but i know you'll still find it, when you know where to look. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> we begin with president obama, it is a testing time for him, and he contends with one foreign policy after another. from ukraine to iraq, to gaza, to the demands of the moment have disrupted longer term planning on the domestic front, economic numbers have improved but with two-thirds of his presidency behind him many policy goals remain elusive, the economist magazine has run several covers critical of the president during the past year, joining me now from london, john micklethwait, she the editor of the economist and recently interviewed the president aboard
air force one, i am pleased to pleased to have him back on this program. i want to talk about this very, very interesting interview but i made the reference to the number of covers that you have run of the president, raising questions as do, you know, about foreign policy as well as domestic policy as well as leadership and a lot of other things you endorsed this president twice. but you have raised critical questions. now you get an opportunity to talk to him on air force one, three of you hovered over a microphone talking to the president. describe to me before -- the optics of this before we talk about the content of this. >> it is very good, but the original reason he wants to talk to us was to talk about africa and then he suggested we talk about foreign policy, we talked about that and he himself made a pitch to talk about the economy and his attitude toward business. so it sort of follows that track to some extent extent and the second thing as you say it is a small group of people, three
people huddled over a microphone in air force one, we land halfway through it and keeps on talking. and the last thing, very obviously is i lack your silky tongued interrogation skills, but what is interesting i think is he does talk quite at length about how he feels about the world, how he feels about business, and how he feels about africa. >> and what was most interesting about how he feels about the world, about africa, and about foreign policy? >> and business? >> it is interesting. i think if you are a critic of obama and as you said we have endorsed him but also done so somewhat grudgingly, the economist, he should do because we endorsed him and then he pointed out rather grudgingly rather correct we certainly last time around were rude about certain things he has done. we think he has been too tough on business and we have been rude about his foreign policy in terms of particularly the issue of what exactly would america fight for? what exactly would
it stand for? but i think the bit where the sort of passion comes upmost is on the issue of business, he comes back quite hard and tries to make the case that corporate leaders should love him, he has produced a wonderful economy for him and he still doesn't get why they don't entirely like him, i think. >> did you produce that question for him in terms of that perhaps he doesn't get what it is about him that they don't like? >> well, there is a particular exchange where he cites an example, well companies, their main priority is just to serve shareholders and i understand, toe pointed out that is exactly what executives come, they run into the white house which doesn't realize the modern chief executive is somebody who has to look over a great many things, executives spend half their time doing socially responsible things, it is a vast part of what they do. they get involved in things to do with workers, with dealing with different stakeholders, all of those sort of things and one of the things they get
frustrated about with obama white house they usually mention jared very quickly is they are always seen as people just trying to make a quick buck, and his response was, yes, they say that but he don't do quite enough of it and he said, every time they say that i ask why are your lobbyist out, why aren't your lobbyists out there campaigning for these things but a very con at the native president and that's the part of obama in some way i am surprised he doesn't do more interviews like that because actually you give obama time to talk, he is an interesting, thoughtful man and that is really, i think, the obama that americans first voted for and actually still do fairly largeñr ny looked at the world u learned a greatñiñi deal. he is very interesting also @@out the idea if you look at the new developing countñiçó rns look atñiñi indonesia, south afc backed him in theñr way he had hoped. his strategy of a foreign policy is one which relies on coalitions of the willing,
coalitions areçó reasonableñrxde unreasonableg7i2pgoplei] liked%5 hoped to back him, the emerging brics he talks about them coming of age and who satñrxdñixd there andñiñiçón these things forñi quite a long time. >> rose: overallñrçó youñiñi cañ elect, his ability to understanr issuesñi+ >>ñi yes, /mñ is definitely axd+ betterñiñrñi communicatoçñxd tó but heçóñi doesn'tñi --ñr yes, i thatñ2hráxáse á"qqñibmf obama w- think, thatñiñrçó elementçó ofñú really follows through on things. for instance,çó inçóçóñ- next quarter century, africa is thisñrç?r grestñr emergingçó et the way that america guidedçó te las+i bigñrñiçó emwreing ecofjs
asia, you lookñi at sortñiñi= wentçóxd toçóñre1]iñ china,ñi aa lot of bloodçó andñiñtr treasurg toñ is it committed tookñr doñr th thingñi in africa, you haveñiñpe africanñiñtrçóxd suñm is interesting and so onñrñiñrñw far is america prepari that? ñi az queswy toñrñiq of advantages in africa. doesn't have the burden of all ofxde1 that.éh%q9ñ
it is reasonable to uphold obama against questions. >> there is also this these things require effort. of the overview of the president expressed in part in this recent political profile titled the obama paradox written by carrie brown and jennifer epstein, quote, obama has always projected the aura of a deeply confident man, someone on the basis of past experience was justified in assuming that good luck just naturally happened to him but in the second term, confronted by recurring setbacks and regular reminders of the limit of his power, he began to convey a sense that even hopeful news might be ephemeral, a mirage.
>> i think that is interesting. i would have agreed with that before that week, oddly, i think maybe when you saw -- he was an unusually good news, he got good economic news which seemed to justify his faith in the american economy. i think there is slightly more optimism in obama, maybe be, may be beginning to creep back, but it is very, you know, his presidency is one of those where i think you will look back on it both in terms of being frustrated by a republican congress but also in terms of missed opportunities, you and i have talked before about simpson-bowles, the issues of reforming american government. he had that chance and didn't take it. i would say drawing a red line in syria and not actually punishing assad when he went over it, that was also a mistake, and had he really brought china in, i am looking at henry kissinger's book which is still to come out you look at the way in which he thinks about the world, obama, has obama's foreign policy really tried to do that level i am not so sure.
>> rose: what would be kissinger's advice for obama and china? >> i think kissinger has a long record of trying to work out what the interests of countries are and focusing on those and trying to come up with new versions of an order based around that, and i think there is -- there is definitely an interesting thing as you look at the chinese now, when you ask them about the americans they talk to, they talk about henry kissinger, they talk about bob zell elect and they don't talk about people within the obama administration in the same way, and that is partly because they prefer slightly older people, with all due respect to bob zelek, that's the way they think. it still shows something and this is something where you have to develop these relationships, so the point about obama really he talks about china again in the interview, he says, he gives china quite a good hand in africa, it is a very easy, slight to do, to say the chinese are causing trouble in africa,
he goes on about it the more the merrier, let them in and very happy to compete with them, the chinese are good at some things in foreign policy more generally he does accept bringing china into the world international order is a great test of this thing, i think it is fair, if obama ends his presidency second term of his presidency without having done that, i think that really will be difficult, but he does talk again about the need to be tough with china as well. >> rose: well, let me read this from his mouth to your ears. you have to be pretty firm with them, talking about the chinese, because they will push as hard as they can until they meet resistance. they are not sentimental and they are not interested in abstractions, that can come right out of the mouth of henry kissinger, i mean it sounds like kissinger, does it not? >> yes because he is talking about fundamental interests of what the chinese want and how they define themselves and i think actually a lot of the obama presidency is being learning that. you have to have some sympathy with him. he has a country at the moment
which is not enthusiastic about foreign entanglements and i think that is different and it is interesting the way first you have those desperately keen you could run a moral living foreign policy and the obama crew that seem to take a broader first do no harm .. either which of are particularly -- >> rose: no, no, not first no harm, first don't screw it up. don't screw it up. >> and that i think is that the way you want to look back on it i think he is beginning like most presidents to suddenly realize just how big and complicated the world is and the fundamental, the big bit we push him on in the interview is the obama foreign policy has been based around this idea that a group of reasonable people will come together and back things, that is pretty much the way he imagined the arab spring would go. he has tried to do other sort of more of a coalition of the willing. it is a coalition of the reasonable people, but he runs into these two problems as i mentioned earlier, one is, you
know, the unreasonable people, vladimir putin is one, net huh netanyahu, many would argue he is unreasonable .. the allies that haven't really come to support him and realizing it is a more complicated world people don't know what your interests are. >> rose: you know, he defined his view of the world in a speech at west point and he also said to you about the u.s. role in the world and he answered the question you posed in your magazine cover, what would america fight for? the president said part of my job has been to try to persuade countries that the united states will always shoulder a greater burden than others, but we still can not do it alone, given the complexity and interconnectedness of today's world. so assess that for me. >> i think that is true. he also talks, i think, in an interview if i remember it correctly he talks about the idea that americans in some ways can never get it right.
either intervening to too much r too little, people are probably missing it now i would argue on a lot of the fringes of russia, in terms of japan, in terms of the gulf states, all of those people feel that america is not enough there at the moment, they may have been the people that wanted george w. bush complained about too much of america being around. i think he is still wrestling with that and i think that is his part of the elements of letting him talk for some time, amateurish, charlie rose, to give him time to say what he thinks. and i think he does find this world both absorbing and also actually strangely -- he is beginning to analyze the more and more he does. >> rose: you call middle class and working class families his obsession it is where we have made less progress than he would lying. >> it does. it is interesting he comes at the end i talked about actually toward business and, you know,
business, you have got to not just lobby for things, in a publicly you have to lobby for them privately as well, but he also goes to the rich. he doesn't like the idea that he is seen as a class warrior and has a bit where to hedge fund managers you can keep your, he said you can keep your 0 house in the hamptons i won't take it away from you but it is not the rich he argues that that should be complaining they have done pretty well. his argument for what it is worth, he talks about the, the rest of his life the fighting for people lower down, the lives haven't improved as much and i think that is a bit of the obama maybe that is sort of passionate domestic bit which waits to come out, and i think he does sort of veer with you and i have talked to you about this before, there are at least two big, i think debates going on in the world at the moment one is to do with inequality and that is what he begins to veer toward and that is, pool of people, pulling
people toward the left, it is difficult to follow that without thinking about redistribution, yes, you can think about things like education as well and/or on the other thing, which bring up in my book with obama as i am with you, the issue of government, and that brings and reforming government, that takes society to the right. and i think that is an interesting bit and obama is always caught in the middle of that. he is prepared to look again at how you examine government, his own focus i think is going to relentlessly going to be on inequality and that particular -- he keeps using the word fair a lot and that's a trend throughout the entire world at the moment. in terms of left of center politicians he says, in terms of the ban in britain and in france, but also i think you are beginning to think quite a lot in terms of the certain trying, you say angela merkel and cameron as well. that is an issue. >> rose: thank you, well done. >> thank you very much. >> rose: we will be right back, thank you very much -- stay with us.
>> rose: joining now four guests to talk about pa palestinians and the conflict in gaza. >> cha-cha. >> he is a fellow at the brookings institution and former advisor to the palestinian leadership. >> rula jebreal, host, author and political commentary and a foreign policy analyst for newsweek yousef munayyer. >> i am pleased to have them here to talk about the way they see the events in the middle east from the palestinian perspective. this is the palestinian community supportive of hamas in terms of this conflict? with israel. >> and thanks for that question, charlie. i think one of the biggest misunderstandings about this conflict was that the people participating in the militancy on the ground in the gaza strip were just hamas. and that, in fact, is not the case. every palestinian political party that has a military wing was engaged in the
resistance to the israeli attacks and i think what that reflects is a broad will among the palestinian population to resist this israeli aggression on the gaza strip and of course the siege on the gaza strip which does not discriminate between members of hamas, it does not discriminate between the young and the old. it is the indies discriminate collective punishment of one point a million people in the gaza strip. so i think this is not just about hamas. this is about the palestinian people in the gaza strip, and of course everywhere wanting to push back against this ongoing occupation and of course the siege which for the last several years has paid -- put a huge toll on the civilian population there. >> rose: other questions about that, let me just understand the notion of who is fighting there. what other palestinian groups with military wings are you speaking of that are engaged in the fighting? >> well there are lots of them?
there is of course hamas sway political organization has a military wing which is the bring gay, islamic jihad has a similar situation. the popular front and the democratic front for the liberation of palestine, the popular resistance, committees, and also by the way the martyrs brigade which is affiliated with militant organization which is of course the party of president mahmoud abbas of the palestinian authority, so what you are seeing here is not simply about hamas. >> i disagree, actually on this point. i think it was clear that hamas was leading islamic jihad was following, popular front participated, but i don't think pa really agreed or even participated in most of the operation. i think they agree on a fundamental -- i don't agree on a fundamental part on how to achieve palestinian statehood and sovereign palestinian state
by -- and the palestinians in the west bank with leadership of abbas and before under the prime minister, told the palestinians, and promised them they can achieve sovereign state through negotiation, renouncing violence, and what happens the moment they didn't get anything through those negotiation, the credibility was undermine, undermined as hamas credibility was undermine and they had to have a coalition government because they are weak politically, not only politically, people did not believe in hamas message anymore. they were looking at the west bank, looking as and seeing a thriving economy, seeing the, situations can improve their livelihood can improve and sooner or later israel will have to give in. the perverse message is when they negotiated with hamas directly and released 1,000 prisoners for one israeli soldier, the perverse mental that was sent out if you use
violence, sooner or later we negotiate with you. if you accept all the conditions and the demands, and you negotiate peacefully, we neglect you and that, i think, was a turning point for hamas. >> rose: nadia when i was there talking and i raised the question which has been raised often, was this beginning of this conflict in some part impacted by the fact that hamas had come to a very tough point? they lost some friends in the region. egypt is under different leadership. what the push and pull within the palestinian community? >> that is true, charlie. everything that you said, falls into the bigger picture of after the arab spring hamas found itself squeezed because it lost its support in syria, it found itself now in, cut off in qatar, politically as the loss because aboubecause of the brotherhood s thrown out and they had a natural ally with him during his
one year tenure in cairo, so it was a necessity of the political landscape in the middle east that forced them to come into a coalition government with the palestinian authority. at the same time for the pa and president abbas also he needed hamas, because after -- and i disagree with rula on the terms of the economy in the west bank. actually it is not thriving at all. they live on donation. at the moment israel cut down its money they are supposed to give them in tax revenue, the civil servants are not paid and live on donation mrs. the international community, despite the fact that the palestinian authority chose negotiation as a strategic kind of method of achieving a palestinian state, the israelis didn't give them anything so for the palestinian in gaza to look at the west bank as a good example i don't think that was the case at all. but coming back to hamas, i think it is also wrong to dismiss hamas as just a terrorist organization, as we often hear in the west, hamas is
a political staff i have organization that contested an election, it won an election, it runs gaza as a government, it is represented in the parliament but it is also wrong and i think it is not accurate to make it analogous to isis and al qaeda, like the israeli prime minister often wanted to say. they chose violence as a method to gain the same aim that the palestinian wants which is independent palestinian state. the only difference is the they use it as a bargaining chip, the fact that in their carter they call for the decan instruction of israel, but mitchell himself said before in 1967, could be acceptable as the basis for a palestinian state. in this case, they are calculated organization, they are not reckless, but of course many people blame them for using the rocket attack israeli civilians for no political gain as such, in fact, they caused so much destruction in gaza and killed so many civilians, as a result. so we have a situation now that
the unity government that by the way is not formed by hamas, it is a government of technocrats that both sides agreed upon. >> the palestinian authority and hamas, and basically, the agreement was number one is to call for this government which would be within eight weeks and call for election which is -- it might happen but i don't think it will, and second, to unify this government under one government and one gun and that is going to be the most difficult and crucial issue that we are going to see now because this hamas is going to be like this his bola in lebanon and that is going to be very, very tough. >> rose: okay. go ahead, khaled. >> i very much agree with the essence of what yousef is saying is that palestinians are basically united which has been a long time coming, actually, in both the west bank and gaza. you see a closing of ranks as as yousef pointed out of the fighting forces in the gaza strip, but you also see a
closing of ranks in the west bank where there are mass protests by -- with the participation of all palestinian factions, and, in fact, many independents who have no factional affiliation at all. so what this conflict has done actually is consolidated palestinian unity in a way that we haven't seen in many years. so i think that is an important development and it is probably the only positive development i can see coming out of this awful conflict. but i think it is also true and i think, you know, the others touched on this as well, there is a fundamental paradox when it comes to the two separate agendas of a peaceful negotiation or conflict resolution track with mahmoud abbas and pa at that on the one hand, fatah and the one hand and the track of armed struggle or
resistance or violence on the part of hamas primarily on the other. and the paradox is that when there is calm and quiet in the occupied territories, the israelis tend to become complacent and the americans as well and so palestinians are ignored. >> right. >> and the occupation continues, the status quo continues. it is only when violence occurs, unfortunately, that people stand up and say, ah, yes there is a block indicated, ah, yes there is an occupation that needs to be addressed. >> is it a true narrative in your judgment that the palestinians in gaza missed an opportunity to build a positive relationship. >> how can you have an opportunity when you live in an open-air prison? what opportunities? i don't see any opportunities when you force 1.8 million people to stay locked up in an open-air prison but to force them to block them from all sides where there is no trade, no aid. >> rose: this was true from
the very beginning? >> from the very, very beginning. it has been eight years that gaza has been under blockade. >> i was part of the team that worked on the gaza disengage. in 2005 and i was there at the time, not even gaza but working on it from the west bank, and the sequence of events actually is the israeli withdrawal took place in august, there were meetings, the israelis insisted that the withdrawal be unilateral, which in any unilateral setting it means one side will not have their interests addressed. but they recognized that there had to be some security coordination. and that gaza's borders had to be somewhat open so there had to be arrangements on the borders, there was an agreement on movement and access that was brokered by world bank president wolf sen and the americans were also involved and that was in the fall of 2005. >> so there is a necessary narrow window between then and
when hamas came in january of 2006 and once hamas was elected, well, actually before hamas was elected it was already clear that the provisions to allow u.n. monitors on the border with egypt and to lou access between gaza and the west bank and to allow gaza's borders to be open with israel, none of those were actually implement sod it was a complete blockade at that point but it was the first closure of the borders. then the next closure came when hamas was elected in january and in fact you had a boycott of the entire palestinian government by the international community until hamas forcibly took over gaza a year and a half later, and after that it became a full-blown blockade. and so this problem began with an israeli plan to separate gaza from the west bank and the closure on gaza's borders has gotten increasingly tighter and
the conflict has gotten increasingly more violent and hamas's weapons have gotten more sophisticated. so it is clear that there is a causal relationship between the closures, the violence, and the intensity of the violence. >> rose: nadia, you are nodding your head. >> yes. and let me tell you something else as well. there is an entire generation in gaza who are born there and they want, they weren't able to go to visit their relatives in rama la or in jerusalem and this is only 20 minutes, a maximum an hour drive. i mean, gaza without exaggeration it is a big jail. and just to give you a personal example i lived, i was born in gaza and left 30 years ago and to say israel has handed over gaza to the palestinians and turned it into singapore but screwed up badly is not true, because 30 years later, to enter rama la on the west bank i
needed to coordinate a military permit from the israeli military to enter rama abou la because im originally from gaza. they control everything with gaza, they withdrew the settlers and they withdrew the army but they still control the air and the sea and the land point, they control boats and registry, they control documentaries, if you are a palestinian from gaza you cannot go and live in the west bank despite you are officially under the authority of the palestinian, i am sorry abbas, but basically it is, they control everything so it is understandable why people are in gaza are neglected and also the israelis, also it is a common complaint to say, well, we cannot negotiate with him because h he has no control over gaza, and we would be happy to have a narrative where hamas is in control in gaza to a certain extent until every now and then they do something and hamas starts indiscriminate rockets into southern israel, but the fact is that hamas themselves as
well, they now seek the consolation with the palestinian authority for the reason we mention. it is also important for the palestinians because now for abbas to say i represent everybody, and when i have a referendum, and i call for the recognition of the state of israel which is the plo recognized since 1988 and nothing new by the way, that i also include hamas, you have to bring them to the fold and they are not part of the plo, the palestinian liberation organization. >> >> rose: i want to ask other questions about what we aring is saying. is it possible that in a unity government that hamas would modify, as you just suggested,? is? is that the likelihood of hamas's participation with fatah? with the palestinian authority? >> absolutely. i mean -- >> rose: what modifications do you mean when you say that? >> well, basically, hamas has in
its campaign has called for the destruction of israel, it refuses to recognize israel as a jewish state or as a state, that actually existed on what used to be palestine so basically, the plo now wanted to bring it, if it accepted to be a part of the plo it has to accept israel's right to exist. this is a fact. so if they manage to do that, they are successful in bringing them to the fold and they speak as one authority as one people, as one representative and they can go and negotiate with one voice but also it has been clear a long time ago that when mahmoud abbas negotiated on behalf of the palestinians he does not negotiate on behalf of fatah, he negotiates on behalf of all the palestinian groups and if they accepted the deal he would put it to them, if the majority of the palestinians said yes, we will accept a two-state solution on the 1967 border as east jerusalem as a capital and everybody will go along with that. >> many people in the conversation about israel in the
past several weeks have been very quick to cite the charter of the hamas party but very few people who are covering this issue can also cite any language from any charter of any israeli parties. the reality is that the likud party which is the party of the israeli prime minister, benjamin netanyahu flatly reject the existence of a palestinian state anywhere west of the, west of the jordan river. so there are plenty of parties by the way to the right of the lick cud likud .. exactly and any part of palestine. >> they expressed it many times, under any circumstances will never give the palestinians a state. >> but palestinians cannot choose israeli leaders. they should not be choosing stillian leaders. if you are going to have an agreement ever on this issue, it has to be between parties that actually, actually legitimate i will represent the stakeholders
in this issue. and that is not going to be served by keeping palestinians divided. so i think the notion that, you know, any palestinian parties cannot participate in a government is really only aimed at keeping the palestinians divided and keeping in occupation going on ad infinitum sokollation of palestinian territory can continue. >> i think hamas is a savvy political movement, but it is violent to get something and today we are seeing in this conflict the military arm is strong and it has an agenda but the political arm is strong and very and fully in charge. >> rose: the political arm of hamas. >> is fully in charge. they can get tactical improvement of the situation, but in the long run they understand perfectly that they have to recognize israel and they will recognize israel. i have no doubt about it. the question is, this is what every palestinian is asking today, instead of addressing the symptoms. >> rose: when you say they recognize it you mean people who are part of hamas today? >> absolutely. if you talk to mashl privately
they tell you that they are using this as a bargainable so they can have a palestinian state. and they are using this because -- and they point out to the fact that abbas recognized an israeli state and he got nothing so they are using this as a bargain. at the same time i think we keep the conversation on, about the palestinian issue during, as cha lid said in moments where we have launching rockets or some israeli soldier kidnapped and really we are avoiding the bigger question and this is why we are not challenging israelis, israeli officials. why when -- go on air and said what country would accept this? and we need security. i think -- >> rose: the united states said no country would accept it. >> no country but what about the palestinian security? and what about other sides? you know when a palestinian legislator said palestinians are the only
nation on earth who are asked to guarantee security of their occupiers. how can that be? >> how can that be? >> so if you don't underestimate the major issue the occupation and challenge palestinians on this issue, on what is the best method to reach that, but also challenge israelis and i don't see this happening on television. these are the two issues they are never asked about, they agree on palestinian state, how when? are you okay? you know, asking the mill tar station and that is intertwined with the end of the occupation or not. these are the two themes that are absent from the conversation. >> rose: khaled do you think benjamin netanyahu wants to see a two-state solution. >> i think based on what he said and based more importantly on what he has done to is extent he does step a palestinian state i think it bears no resemblance to anything that palestinians actually think of or most people think of in terms of a sovereign and independent state.
he has talked about both before and after the gaza conflict israel would retain control over air, land and sea borders that there would be an israeli presence in a so-called palestinian state, all of these things -- >> rose: along the banks of the jordan river. >> primarily along the banks of the jordan river but also talked about other sensitive areas, he insisted jerusalem would never be divided mean meaning there will be no palestinian capital in east jerusalem which is part of the west bank, most people may not know that. so i mean all of that suggests that whatever, you know, you call it a state, but it doesn't fit the definition according to i think the most basic understanding of statehood and sovereignty, so it is really just another way to repackage the occupation and, you know, i think -- >> rose: you think th the israelis want to occupy the west bank? >> i think they don't want to rule palestinians, the
palestinian people, but they want to control the palestinian land. so they are sort of stuck, i think where we are stuck is because the two are inseparable, you can't, you know, you can try to push the people off, but there is, you know, that is against international law. but you know, there is this problem of people and land. israel wants to keep as much land as possible but without any responsibility for the people. that is what happened in gaza. it realized that the colonization into experiment in gaza was a failure, that 7,000 settlers amid one and a half million palestinians, so that wasn't going to work. so they abandoned gaza, but didn't give up control. and i think the vision for the parent, current government's vision for the west bank is very similar, we will give up ruling over the lives of palestinians in the west bank, but we won't give up control, an that is what
lies at the heart of this whole conflict. how. >> rose: how do you create two state, create a palestinian state that controls its own state and at the same time finds israel security concerns recognized? >> well, i think there are many initiatives that carry initiatives and proposal was very clear on that, and he talked about demille tarration, plus an international force that can eventually help israelis border, you know, monitor the borders and i think palestinians basically are looking and they are realistic about it. they understand that israel is one of the strongest arm in the world and they understand that, you know, they are sitting over 500 atomic bombs. so there is no way, their they are guaranteed a sovereign
state. why would they fight? >> if they are concern about their security they would not be embedding hundreds and thousands of their civilians into be limb rantly occupied territory. >> rose: these are settlements? >> of course. the problemq'ur)j that decision make in other words israel have made the fundamental calculation that the cost of continuing the occupation are not high enough for them to change course. right now, it is politically profitable in israel as a leader to maintain the occupation, to continue developing -- >> rose: you mean political sport among your own voters by continuing the -- >> a settler constituency, like perhaps the cuban vote in florida, which may force you)wñ maintain a policy that does not necessarily make sense, but one that is politically profitable at the same time. so that is what is happening right now. the israeli electorate is moving further and further to the right. the cost of occupation have dropped very significantly, including militarily. you know, defense consumption in
israel today compared to gdp is half of what it was before the peace process. the peace process has made the cost of occupation drop for the israelis. so as far as they are concerned, until there is somebody pressuring them to actually bring an end to it, why should they end it? that's how they think about it. >> rose: so they want to continue the occupation because it is politically advantageous? >> politically and economically profitable. >> the land and the natural resources and the water in the west bank. >> rose: let me ask nadia, begin with you. so where are we today? i mean, rula made some points with respect to what this conflict and the graphic illustrations of how many palestinians and how many civilians and how many children have dialed, how has -- how has it changed if any the circumstances of the search for peace in two states living side by side?
>> well, sadly, i have to say, that for many israelis and especially i am disappointed with the peace camp i agree society has shifted to the right, especially within the cabinet of prime minister then you, netanyahu that makes him look moderate which is -- >> the end of a occupation for 4 .. 4 million palestinians, the occupation has no cost so they have the running for it like a civil administration, keeping the security of the israelis, so for most of the israelis who live very close to gaza, like in ashdod, or a coastal city they can sit on the beaches and enjoy their life but they are completely, might as well live in a different planet, they do not see the other side of how the palestinians live, and, therefore, for them, there is no political pressure on any government to take any action, and for all of the reasons that i mentioned before, the palestinians pay the highest price. in gaza we have seen with all of
the horrific statistics of the dead and the wounded and the ref refugees and the houses that have been demolished they pay the price every time that israel attacks, but israel will never have security without justice, this is a fact. and there are campaigns and occupation will end because israel morally cannot sustain a military occupation in the 21st century. we have seen it all over the world. and even in plays like south africa which we believe it will never happen, but it did happen, apartheid ended so even for the best interest of the israelis and the friends of israel, they should put pressure now, now is the time. i will say that what happened in gaza should be a catalyst for a broader peace negotiation, that netanyahu should after this negotiation in cairo and hopefully be a longer cease-fire, sit down a and take a courageous decision for peace, and decided that once and for all now is the time to negotiate
a two-state solution on the 1967 border. unfortunately i am not optimistic because i think i think this prime minister is not willing to take any chances for peace for all of the reasons mentioned by my colleagues before. >> rose: this is a question from "the new york times" that said that arab friends, egypt, and other countries, jordan, saudi arabia, who are acquiescing, is that your understanding of how those countries and that more with respect to hamas are more with israel than they are with other palestinians? >> i think one thing that the middle east particularly in the last several years has taught us that there is a huge gulf between the way that arab public things and the way that arab leaders think an what we saw in the last several days. >> rose: different between the kingdoms and the street? >> well, publics, we don't like to say street. but, yes, there is this ho hugep
between the public and the leadership, and we even saw. >> rose: which side they are on in certain conflict? >> of course, of course, the palestinian issue continues to be the bleeding heart of the arab -- it has been and continues to be, as this went on, even the king of saudi arabia, who was very much in the so-called, you know, moderate axis, if you will, had to come out with a statement con dentalling what he called israeli war crimes in the gaza strip because they know, they know that the arab public will not sit by and watch as, you know, palestinians continue to be butchered in the gaza strip. i mean, this is not something that they can continue to keep a lid on forever, but i wanted to make one very important point, if i could, charlie and that is that after 2008, 2009, after 2012, during those -- during those wars on gaza, the world is watching gaza, but then the world took their eyes away. what message do we send to palestinians if the only time
that we pay attention to their plight is when they are attacking israelis? something has to fundamentally change about this incentive structure. you are absolutely right that there is a discussion now about palestinian strategy, and there are three different ways this can go, through armed struggle, through negotiations, or through nonviolence. unfortunately, all of these avenues have continued to be closed off to palestinians. we see what has happened with armed struggle. negotiations have been going on for 20 years, palestinians have seen nothing but continued settlement expansion in the west bank. when we see nonviolence, in the west bank, and it is repred brutally by israeli forces, the world is silent, there is no condemnation of that. >> there is something that is changing yousef if i might add, and it is social media. look, in 2009, israel didn't allow any foreign journalist to be in gaza, 2012, the situation
changed, 2014, independent media and social media are taking the lead, because whatever the talking point of the idf, they are challenged by other diverse voices and views and backed by evidence, pictures, videos, in real-time. and this is pushing all of us and especially young americans who are relying more and more on these after news for information, even in polling we can see this, in fact, so americans today who are relying on these alternative after news for news are dropping their support for israeli policies in the west bank, unlike older viewers who are relying more and more on mainstream media. >> rose: wanting them to end the occupation? >> absolutely. they are not willing to accept this anymore and the conversation within social media is -- and we can see it even in writing, cmn rating, dropped 30 percent even, one-third of their viewers, younger viewers
are disappearing and al jazeera. >> rose: khaled answered this, clearly what has been suggested at this table is that israel has to end the occupation. what does hamas have to do and what do the palestinians have to do? >> hamas -- sorry. >> rose: go ahead, nadia first and then go to khaled. >> i am sorry. hamas as i say, hamas is a political organization, when they decided to contest the election in the first place is because they believed that politics or political process will get them somewhere. otherwise it is like islamic jihad so therefore they are pragmatists and willing to participate in the process so bring them over, i would say. make them part of the solution, not part of the problem. and i think they are willing and as rula said they are using this card of not recognizing israel as a bargaining chip because they want israel to give them
something in return so as part of this negotiation in sky 0, cairo now and they want to talk about lifting the siege on gaza and all the people in gaza and opening the crossing between fatah and gaza then let it be on the table and let them discuss all the issues and be part of a palestinian unity government, israel cannot have it both ways they can't say they want to negotiate with thed pa and give them nothing in return for 20 years but an increase in the west bank, with absolutely no hope and you cannot move between the different palestinian areas and you not say you have decided to be in a strategic alliance with terrorists. so basically, jimmy carter by the way said it today the only way forward is to bring hamas into the political dialogue to moderate their position, and to make them a partner and the only way is to allow them to be in the negotiation, directly or indirectly, whatever way it will take shape or place or time,
whatever, but basically, we will be speaking in one voice and i think recognizing the reality on the ground they lost face in syria, no friends in egypt, they are really isolated, they are not very popular in gaza, if there was a free election many believe hamas will lose, and this in a fair election so they know that for their own political survival and their political -- an entity, political entity on the ground we have to recognize they are not going to go away. what do you try to go? demolish militarily and they cannot the only way to bring them politically and the situation is very similar to the same thing in northern ireland and similar to the organization, use terror or vie lengths to achieve their political means, they are not fighting abroad, they are not targeting people wh who who have nothing to do with palestinian israeli question they use violence to achieve their means so let's take the violence away
and let most palestinians have been calling for nonviolence to end the occupation but really the answer is the end of occupation. the solution to war and every time we have this conflict is the occupation. that is the bottom line and hopefully we can get them together on the negotiation table with the prime minister of israel that will agree to negotiate with the palestinian authority, with hamas included that we can get a deal. >> rose: last word to you, khaled. >> i want to touch on these points. i agree complet completely witha and yousef and rula. the central issue is the occupation, and i think is where american leadership comes in and frankly what we have seen from the obama administration is a real moral and political failure, you know, i think what is needed is a sense of the link damage, the relationship between violence and occupation. this linkage was well
established by ironically must have the previous administration, which at that time a dozen or so years ago they put forward a road map for middle east peace and that internationally accepted road map established a very clear link between israel's security and deoccupation, and decolonization that if you want israeli security you have to provide a horizon that shows that palestinians are -- that israel is relinquishing control over palestinian lives. this administration has bypassed that entirely and skipped right over to try and resolve these permanent issues without any safety net for how you deal when things get out of hand. you can't simply leave the parties to themselves. the bottom line, and i know this has been stated but i think it can't be stated enough, israel security cannot be achieved at the expense of palestinian
security. the message it sends is that, one, israeli, one israeli or one or 23 civilian lives are worth more than almost 2,000 palestinians that were killed over the last month and so, and even if you have no empathy for palestinians in gaza, it is just basic common sense that when you reap, week that kind of death and destruction on people, one way or another, they will try to find a way to revisit that on you. so then we just get a constant escalation and this is where american leadership has been absent, to simply focus on israeli security while ignoring palestinian security, i think is a central failing of this whole american led peace process. >> rose: thank you. i thank each of you. thank you. >> thank you. >> rose: thank you for joining it. see you next time. >> for more about this program and early episodes visit us online at cbs.org and charlie rose dot cog can six come
>> female announcer: research now shows that your brain has tremendous power over your health. >> the scientific data proves that your thoughts, beliefs, and feelings affect the physiology of your body more profoundly than you may realize. >> announcer: join physician dr. lissa rankin as she teaches scientifically proven techniques to train your mind to heal your body. >> i'm gonna show you how you can make your own diagnosis, write your own prescription, and optimize your chance of being cured from any health conditions that might plague you. >> announcer: learn how to enhance your opportunity for great health, alleviate chronic conditions, and prevent long-term illness. >> you're gonna actually learn how to cultivate a brain that creates healing. >> announcer: next, watch heal yourself: mind over medicine with lissa rankin, m.d.